Appeal 2007-2240
Application 09/818,016
1 o The scheduling arrangement of Lesaint has no capacity for providing
2 a mechanic information regarding items associated with a
3 recommended routine responsive to an inquiry from the mechanic.
4 The Examiner properly acknowledges this in making the proposed
5 combination with Bergeron in the rejection applied against claim 1.
6 (Br. 9-10.)
7 o The Examiner appears to be taking a different position in stating that
8 Lesaint somehow teaches determining whether a mechanic accepts an
9 assignment. In any event, Lesaint assumes that a mechanic accepts an
10 assignment given to it. There is no discussion within the document of
11 giving the mechanic the freedom to accept or decline an assignment.
12 Adding such a feature to Lesaint will not make that arrangement any
13 more efficient in terms of scheduling out assignments to meet its
14 intended objectives. There is no motivation for modifying Lesaint in
15 this manner. (Br. 9-10.)
16 • With respect to claim 15, the Appellants present no argument, but simply
17 register their disagreement with the Examiner’s conclusion (Br. 10).
18 • With respect to claim 20, the Appellants repeat their contentions regarding
19 the lack of billing information, supra. (Br. 10-11.)
20 The Examiner responds that, as regards the contention concerning “billing
21 information”, Lesaint is concerned with the customer service industry. Lesaint
22 discloses a system that assigns mechanics to appointments for completing tasks for
23 customers, these tasks including repairs, maintenance, field service, etc. It was old
24 and well known in the art at the time of the invention that these are all fee for
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013